Monthly Archives: May 2013

On Thursday, June 6, The Open Group will host a tweet jam examining Platform 3.0™ and why businesses require it to remain relevant in today’s fast paced internet enabled business environment. Over recent years a number of convergent technologies have emerged which have the potential to disrupt the way we engage with each other in both our personal business lives. Many of us are familiar with the buzz words including Mobile, Social, Big Data, Cloud Computing, the Internet of Things, Machine-to-Machine (M2M) and Cosumerization of IT (CoIT) – but what do they mean for our current operating business environments and what should businesses be doing to ensure that they keep pace?

Gartner was the first to recognize this convergence of trends representing a number of architectural shifts which it called a ‘Nexus of Forces’. This Nexus was presented as both an opportunity in terms of innovation of new IT products and services and a threat for those who do not keep pace with evolution, rendering current Business Architectures obsolete.

Rather than tackle this challenge solo, The Open Group is working with a number of IT experts, analysts and thought leaders to better understand the opportunities available to businesses and the steps they need to take to get them there.

Please join us on Thursday, June 6 at 9:00 a.m. PT/12:00 p.m. ET/5:00 p.m. BST for a tweet jam, moderated by Dana Gardner (@Dana_Gardner), ZDNet – Briefings Direct, that will discuss and debate the issues around Platform 3.0™. Key areas that will be addressed during the discussion include: the specific technical trends (Big Data, Cloud, Consumerization of IT, etc.), and ways businesses can use them – and are already using them – to increase their business opportunity. We welcome Open Group members and interested participants from all backgrounds to join the session and interact with our panel thought leaders led by David Lounsbury, CTO and Chris Harding, Director of Interoperability from The Open Group. To access the discussion, please follow the #ogp3 and #ogChat hashtag during the allotted discussion time.

– Does your organization see a convergence of emerging technologies such as social networking, mobile, cloud and the internet of things?

– How has this convergence affected your business?

– Are these changes causing you to change your IT platform; if so how?

– How is the data created by this convergence affecting business models or how you make business decisions?

– What new IT capabilities are needed to support new business models and decision making?

And for those of you who are unfamiliar with tweet jams, here is some background information:

What Is a Tweet Jam?

A tweet jam is a one hour “discussion” hosted on Twitter. The purpose of the tweet jam is to share knowledge and answer questions on Platform 3.0™. Each tweet jam is led by a moderator and a dedicated group of experts to keep the discussion flowing. The public (or anyone using Twitter interested in the topic) is encouraged to join the discussion.

Participation Guidance

Whether you’re a newbie or veteran Twitter user, here are a few tips to keep in mind:

Have your first #ogChat or #ogp3 tweet be a self-introduction: name, affiliation, occupation.

Start all other tweets with the question number you’re responding to and the #ogChat or #ogp3 hashtag.

Sample: “There are already a number of organizations taking advantage of Platform 3.0 technology trends #ogp3”

Please refrain from product or service promotions. The goal of a tweet jam is to encourage an exchange of knowledge and stimulate discussion.

While this is a professional get-together, we don’t have to be stiff! Informality will not be an issue!

A tweet jam is akin to a public forum, panel discussion or Town Hall meeting – let’s be focused and thoughtful.

If you have any questions prior to the event or would like to join as a participant, please direct them to Rob Checkal (rob.checkal at hotwirepr dot com). We anticipate a lively chat and hope you will be able to join!

Patricia Donovan is Vice President, Membership & Events, at The Open Group and a member of its executive management team. In this role she is involved in determining the company’s strategic direction and policy as well as the overall management of that business area. Patricia joined The Open Group in 1988 and has played a key role in the organization’s evolution, development and growth since then. She also oversees the company’s marketing, conferences and member meetings. She is based in the U.S.

Recently, I attended a one-day healthcare transformation event in Toronto. The master of ceremony, a renowned doctor, asked the speakers to be provocative in how to tackle the issues in healthcare and healthcare delivery in a specific way. After about 8 speakers – I must admit I did not hear anything that social media will classify as “remarkable” either in terms of problem definition or the solution direction – all speeches emphasized the importance of better healthcare. I watched one video, Jess’s Story, and I am convinced without discussion that we need a better way to deliver care.

I am an Engineer and not a Medical Doctor. In my profession, we spend 90% of our effort defining the problem and 10% solving it with known solution patterns. In this blog, I would like to define the healthcare delivery problem and offer a potential solution direction.

First the Basic Facts

Table 1: Healthcare Spending and Quality

Country

1980 [$]

2007 [$]

2010 [$]

2012 [$]

Healthcare Quality Ranking

US

1106

6102

8233

8946

6

Canada

3165

4445

5

Germany

3005

4338

1

Note: $ represent per capita spend per year, sources of information are public; references can be made available if required. Healthcare Quality Ranking – lower the number the better

Firstly, the obvious fact is that the US spends more on healthcare per capita and gets less for it. These facts as well as many other studies lead to the same conclusion.

Problem Definition, Option 1 – Straight-forward reduction of healthcare costs: US healthcare roughly represents 18% of the US GDP. Reduction in spending will result in shrinking the GDP, unless politicians spend the saved money somewhere else. This is not a good option as we all know the impact of austerity measures without altering the underlying process. Or even closer to home, the impact of the recent sequesters on air traffic in major us airports has resulted in terrible delays and has significantly inconvenienced the traveling public. We learned during the 1980s when “reengineering” was a sexy terms that when we reduced labour by 30%, we simply hoped the remaining souls would figure out how to do work with less. We all knew what that approach did, fat paycheques for the CEO and senior management and entire industries got wiped out.

Problem Definition, Option 2 – Reduce healthcare costs and issue health dividends: Let’s target to reduce the base healthcare spending to $4000 per person per year. This will bring spending to the 1980 level with inflation factored. The remaining funds, $4946 per capita ($8946 –$ 4000), be given as a health dividend to the population and providers. This will go to both the population as a tax credit and to providers as an incentive to keep those that they care for healthy. This will not reduce health care spending, have no impact on the GDP, but will certainly improve the health of our biggest producers and consumers in the economy.

There is proof that this model could work to reduce overall cost and improve population health if both the population and providers are incented appropriately. Recently, I had an argument with my General Practitioner’s (GP) secretary who wanted me to come to the office three times for the following:

1) to receive the results of my blood test,

2) to have an annual physical check-up,

3) to remove couple of annoying skin tags.

Each procedure was no more than 2 to 7 minutes long, they insisted that it have to be three separate appointments. A total of 10 minutes of consult for three procedures with my GP would have cost me an additional 7 hours in my productivity loss (2.0 hours to drive, 0.5 hour wait and 1.0 hour productivity loss due to distractions of the appointments). A reason for this behaviour is that the way physicians are incented; they are able to bill the system more based on the number of visits alone. Not based on what is good for both the patient and provider.

Therefore, I will define the problem this way: reduce the cost of base care to $4000 per capita and incent both the population and provider to stay and keep their customers healthy. Let the innovation begin. There is no shortage of very smart architects, engineers and very motivated providers who want to live to their oath of “do no harm”.

Call to Action:

To help develop next generation healthcare delivery organization – we need the help of healthcare Zuckerbergs, Steve Jobs, Pierre Omidyar, Jeffrey P. Bezos; people who can think outside the box and bypass the current entitled establishment for the better.

We are taking first step to define an alternative architecture – join us in Philadelphia on July 16th for a one-day active workshop.

Keynote Speaker: Dr David Nash, Dean of Population Health Jefferson University

Reactors Panel: Hear from other experts on what is possible

Workshops

Be part of organized workshops and learn from your fellow providers and enterprise architects on how to transform healthcare for the next generation

This is your trip to the Gemba

Jason Uppal, P.Eng. is the Chief Architect at QRS and was the first Master IT Architect certified by The Open Group, by direct review, in October 2005. He is now a Distinguished Chief Architect in the Open CA program. He holds an undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering, graduate degree in Economics and a post graduate diploma in Computer Science. Jason’s commitment to Enterprise Architecture Life Cycle (EALC) has led him to focus on training (TOGAF®), education (UOIT) and mentoring services to his clients as well as being the responsible individual for both Architecture and Portfolio & Project Management for a number of major projects.

I recently wrote that I had heard and read the opinions of a number of people about what is Business Architecture, as I am sure many of us have but I wanted to understand it from the perspective of people who actually had Business Architect in their job title. So I wrote to 183 people in Australia and New Zealand and asked them.

The initial summary (blog) of the responses I received was focused on the feedback from Business Architects who were employed by organizations I think of as consumers; this one is focused on the feedback from consultants, ranging from those who are working on their own to others who are working with some of the largest consulting firms that we know.

Why I chose the countries I did and the questions I asked are contained in that earlier blog.

Again the responses have been amazing and thank you to everyone who took the time to do so. They included some wonderful insights into their role and into their beliefs with respect to Business Architecture.

Summarizing the feedback from the consultants is even more difficult than that of the consumers. Understandably, each of them has their own approach. I have found it very difficult to decide what to leave out in order to get this down to a reasonable length for a blog.

It is important to repeat that I am still in the process of seeking to understand, so I would be really pleased to hear from anyone who has such a role, to correct any misunderstandings I might have or erroneous conclusions I may have drawn.

The first point of note from the responses is that Business Architecture is still evolving and finding its place in the enterprise. While the consumers saw it as somewhere between immature and missing in action, the consultants tended to look at the how and why of its evolution. In one case the view was that Business Architecture is evolving in response to a demand for greater business oriented control over transformation, while another reported, disappointedly, that business architecture is often seen as Business Process Review/Improvement on steroids. Other comments included:

Generally Business Architecture is seen as business process review and/or business process improvement. There is not much real Business Architecture going on at the moment.

It is not widely understood at this point in time. This first initiative will be conducted in a lightweight manner to gain the business buy in and get some projects onto the roadmap. Delivery time will be a key factor in prioritization as we will be looking for some projects with shorter duration and lower complexity so some tangible benefits can be realized

It is not formally recognized. Last year I was in the supply chain team (who also deal with Lean and other operational improvement skills). We have Business Analysts, and a People and Change Team. We have several areas than do Operating Models. To me various elements of these would be included under the Business Architecture banner.

In common with the consumer viewpoint, the focus of Business Architecture is on the “What”. Some of the comments included:

The Business Architecture will exist with or without technology, but as soon as technology is involved, the technology exists to service the business architecture, and the business architecture should be the input to the technology and application architecture.

Make recommendations of what projects the business should perform, in addition to relevant and timely corrections to the governance structure, business processes, and the structure of business information

The business architecture I am referring to is not the traditional element of the IT based Enterprise Architecture, but a framework that is totally business oriented and in which the whole business, including IT, can commit to in order to truly understand their problems and most of all the potential to genuinely improve the business.

“Business Architecture is not about telling people how to do their job at a detail level. Its function is to help us all to understand how together we can achieve the business goals and objectives

The primary focus of the Business Architect includes the analysis of business motivations and business operations, through the use of business analysis frameworks and related networks that link these aspects of the enterprise together. The Business Architect works to develop an integrated view of the business unit, in the context of the enterprise, using a repeatable approach, cohesive framework, and available industry standard techniques.

In some cases the focus of activity was the entire enterprise: the CEO view. In others it was at the line of business or business unit level. In all cases the focus was very much on the business issues:

Strategy

Business goals, objectives and drivers

Business operating model

Organization structure

Functions, roles, actors

Business processes

Key data elements

Being able to see the big picture and have the ability to communicate with key stakeholders was emphasized time and again.

Make it relevant and “makes sense” to senior management, operations and IT groups. Visualize problems; have a way to communicate with the business team

Be able to relate – what big decision we need to make and to package it up so that execs can make a decision

The only person who cares about the whole picture is the CEO. BA provides the CEO with a one page picture of the whole enterprise in a logical fashion

Show the CEO where impact is on a page – give confidence – control. Help him make decisions around priorities.

The secret of good architecture is taking all the complexity and presenting it in a simplistic way that anyone can understand on a ‘need to know’ basis and quickly find the right answer to the current and/or planned state of business components.

BA facilitates strategic consistency with the business. Where do we need to differentiate more than others? How do we build in once or move to one instance?

Drive prioritization of when to invest based on the businesses strategic goals

Distil, communicate and relate to a business person

A key purpose of this new business driven architecture is to provide the means for communicating and controlling the strategic and operational intentions of the business in a way that is easy to understand for everyone in the organization

A common feature in the feedback is that underneath the models the information is rich – enables drill down – traceability to underlying requirements linked to the requirements.

Two areas of activity stood out the most: Capabilities and Value Streams. Both of these are focused on WHAT a company needs to be able to do to execute its business strategy and to bring a product or service to a consumer. Comments included:

Capabilities – combination of people, process and technology to deliver product features

Logical building blocks – gather information and compare the level of maturity in each capability, compare with others, understand where could we go to

Have intimate knowledge of the Business Capability (As Is/To Be), Business Component Structure, Business Processes, Value Streams and Conceptual Business Models.

Have the capability picture

… not only the capability of each component but also the relationship between components from every appropriate perspective (purpose, technical, compliance, risk, acceptability, etc.)

The Business Architecture is the first stage in a broader EA initiative. Subsequent phases will align capabilities to applications and look at the major data flows between those applications

Since value stream mapping is a lean manufacturing technique, lean techniques are also called out as being relevant to business architecture because they identify areas of waste, which often change work processes or procedures, which may or may not impact applications and technology. Feedback included:

Each value steam has Inputs (that triggers the value stream) and Outputs (the value based result of completing the business activities).

Each value stream is designed against Critical Success Factors, founded on the strategic intentions and priorities of the business, that represent the required business performance with Time, Cost, Quality, Risk and Compliance.

Time – How long the process should take from a Customer Perspective

Cost – How much the process should cost, measured using for example TDABC (Time Driven Activity Based Costing)

Quality – A statement clearly describing the (fit for) purpose of the activity

Risk – The protected acceptable residual risk involved due to effective control within the proposed design

Compliance – The specific interpreted requirements placed on the activity by interpreting the obligations of associated legislation and regulations.

Value streams are directed or informed by policies, plans, procedures, governance, regulations, business rules and other guidance, and are enabled by roles, IT Systems and other resources that will directly or indirectly support their completion.

The As-Is Architecture consists of the related value streams, indicating how the business is currently performing. Under the facilitation of the business architect, design teams investigate how these can be improved to produce the Target State version of the Value Stream.

It was argued that displaying the relationship between the guidance, the enablers and the value streams, opens up the potential to discuss many things related to the business performance; that this alignment is critical for ensuring the business functions operate as expected; and that this is the major feature of business architecture and provides answers to so many previously unanswered questions for business managers.

Incidentally, since value stream maps are often drawn by hand in pencil (to keep the mapping process real-time, simple and iterative by allowing for simple correction) this tends to reinforce the comment by one of the consumer respondents that his most useful tools are pencil and paper.

The role and relationship of Business Architects, Business Analysts and other folk that might come under the general heading of Enterprise Architecture, varied from one organization to another, often seemingly dependent upon the size of the consulting firm. At different ends of the spectrum were:

To a greater or lesser extent, Business Architects are supported by Business Analysts (“the knowledge processing factory) and by people with deep skills in design and process, Lean, 6 Sigma, HR, organization design and training. The Business Architects ensure that all of the pieces fit together in a logical manor and that the impact can be shown in dollar terms

The Enterprise Architect is a person who can perform as both Solution Architect (SA) and a Business Architect (as needed) and has some ability as an Information Architect. In addition, an EA can perform at an enterprise level, something that is NOT required of either an SA or BA

The feedback on the title of Enterprise Architect was as varied as the number of responses. The comments included:

Enterprise Architecture seen as a bad word

With hindsight, referring to it as architecture was a mistake

Enterprise Architecture is an IT version of technical specifications and drawings and not architecture, as such, and Enterprise Architects are mainly focused on the Application and Technology areas.

I think the technology story wave is coming to an end. The focus will be more on the BusArch and InfoArch as that is where, in my view, the business IP sits. In the future more Bus/Info architects will become Enterprise WIDE architects, not so much enterprise architects

In most cases but not all, there is no such job as an Enterprise Architect. It is in instead the overall term for Business Architects, Solution Architects, Information Architects, Value architects, Journey architects and so on.

The key differences that were highlighted between the roles of Business Architect and Enterprise Architect was a matter of depth and potentially also of education:

Enterprise Architects will tend to have more depth in technology; Business Architects will tend to have more depth in business techniques

Enterprise Architects will tend to have a Computer Science degree, or similar; Business Architects will tend to have a business degree or experience.

It was also stated that Business Architecture is a logical growth path for an experienced Business Analyst provided they get an Enterprise level understanding of the Business and Architecture.

When I actually look at the background of the respondents, I can see experience in:

IT consulting

Operations management

Product management

Project management

Business Analyst

Aeronautical Engineering

Logistics

… and much more besides

and education backgrounds are similarly varied.

The common theme is a deep interest in the business issues and what makes organizations work.

The evolution of Business Architecture clearly has a long way to go and depends upon the ability of the practitioners to relate to the business leaders. One respondent predicted a shift and a segmentation in these comments:

For business that serve the “mum and dads”. I believe you will see a grouping of the different architectures based upon the business objectives and capabilities.

I think the technology story wave is coming to an end. The focus will be more on the BusArch and InfoArch as that is where, in my view, the business IP sits. Applications and Technologies are all COTS nowadays (unless you are developing them). I think in the future more Bus/Info architects will become Enterprise WIDE Architects, not so much Enterprise Architects

The last word goes to the feedback that one Business Architect reported:

“In my time with this amazing new methodology I have had two separate reactions that stand out:

The first from an Acting CEO that was one of the biggest sceptics when I started the initiative and in admitting he had been, said that he owed me a big apology that he found the Business Architecture to be both highly useful and quite remarkable.

The second was in relation to a BPO initiative for a long standing traditional finance industry organization, when the chairman of the board said it [Business Architecture] had made a major decision relatively easy, that would have otherwise been one of the most difficult in the company‘s history.”

Allen Brown is President and CEO, The Open Group – a global consortium that enables the achievement of business objectives through IT standards. For over 14 years Allen has been responsible for driving The Open Group’s strategic plan and day-to-day operations, including extending its reach into new global markets, such as China, the Middle East, South Africa and India. In addition, he was instrumental in the creation of the AEA, which was formed to increase job opportunities for all of its members and elevate their market value by advancing professional excellence.

Learning has been a continuous journey for me throughout my career, but certification in TOGAF® truly benchmarked my knowledge and Open CA qualified my capability as a practitioner. Open CA not only tested my skills as a practitioner, but also gave me valuable recognition and respect as an Enterprise Architect within my organization.

When I was nominated to undergo the Open CA Certification in 2010, I didn’t realize that this certification would transform my career, improve my architecture maturity and provide me with the such wide spread peer recognition.

The Open CA certification has enabled me to gain increased recognition at my organization. Furthermore, our internal leadership recognizes my abilities and has helped me to get into elite panels of jury regarding key initiatives at the organization level and at my parent company’s organization level. The Open CA certification has helped me to improve my Architecture Maturity and drive enterprise solutions.

With recognition, comes a greater responsibility – hence my attempt to create a community of architects to within my organization and expand the Enterprise Architecture culture. I started the Architects Cool Community a year ago. Today, this community has grown to roughly 350 associates who continuously share knowledge, come together to solve architecture problems, share best practices and contribute to The Open Group Working Groups to build reference architectures.

I can without a doubt state that TOGAF and Open CA have made a difference in my career transformation: they created organization-wide visibility, helped me to get both internal and external recognition as an Enterprise Architect and helped me to achieve required growth. My Open CA certification has also been well received by customers, particularly when I meet enterprise customers from Australia and the U.S. The Open CA certification exemplifies solid practitioner knowledge and large-scale end-to-end thinking. The certification also provided me with self-confidence in architecture problem solving to drive the right rationale.

I would like to thank my leadership team, who provided the platform and offered lot of support to drive the architecture initiatives. I would like to thank The Open Group’s Open CA team and the board who interviewed me to measure and certify my skills. I strongly believe you earn the certification because you are able to support your claims to satisfy the conformance requirements and achieving it proves that you have the skills and capabilities to carry out architecture work.

Bala Prasad Peddigari (Bala) is an Enterprise Architect and Business Value Consultant with Tata Consultancy Services Limited. Bala specializes in Enterprise Architecture, IT Strategies, Business Value consulting, Cloud based technology solutions and Scalable architectures. Bala has been instrumental in delivering IT Solutions for Finance, Insurance, Telecom and HiTech verticals. Bala currently heads the HiTech Innovative Solutions Technology Excellence Group with a focus on Cloud, Microsoft, Social Computing, Java and Open source technologies. He received accolades in Microsoft Tech Ed for his cloud architectural strengths and Won the Microsoft ALM Challenge. Bala published his papers in IEEE and regular speaker in Open Group conference and Microsoft events. Bala serves on the Open CA Certification Board for The Open Group.

Well the dust has settled now with the conclusion of The Open Group ‘Enterprise Transformation’ Conference held in Sydney, Australia for the first time on April 15-20. Enterprise Architects is proud to have been recognised at the event by The Open Group as being pivotal in the success of this event. A number of our clients including NBN, Australia Post, QGC, RIO and Westpac presented excellent papers on leading edge approaches in strategy and architecture and a number of EA’s own thought leaders in Craig Martin, Christine Stephenson and Ana Kukec also delivered widely acclaimed papers.

Attendance at the conference was impressive and demonstrated that there is substantial appetite for a dedicated event focussed on the challenges of business and technology strategy and architecture. We saw many international visitors both as delegates and presenting papers and there is no question that a 2014 Open Group Forum will be the stand out event in the calendar for business and technology strategy and architecture professionals.

My top 10 take-outs from the conference include the following:

The universal maturing in understanding the criticality of Business Architecture and the total convergence upon Business Capability Modelling as a cornerstone of business architecture;

The improving appreciation of techniques for understanding and expressing business strategy and motivation, such as strategy maps, business model canvass and business motivation modelling;

That customer experience is emerging as a common driver for many transformation initiatives;

While the process for establishing the case and roadmap for transformation appears well enough understood, the process for management of the blueprint through transformation is not and generally remains a major program risk;

Then next version of TOGAF® should offer material uplift in support for security architecture which otherwise remains at low levels of maturity from a framework standardisation perspective;

ArchiMate® is generating real interest as a preferred enterprise architecture modelling notation – and that stronger alignment of ArchiMate® and TOGAF® meta models in then next version of TOGAF® is highly anticipated;

There is industry demand for recognised certification of architects to demonstrate learning alongside experience as the mark of a good architect. There remains an unsatisfied requirement for certification that falls in the gap between TOGAF® and the Open CA certification;

Australia can be proud of its position in having the second highest per capita TOGAF® certification globally behind the Netherlands;

While the topic of interoperability in government revealed many battle scarred veterans convinced of the hopelessness of the cause – there remain an equal number of campaigners willing to tackle the challenge and their free and frank exchange of views was entertaining enough to justify worth the price of a conference ticket;

Unashamedly – Enterprise Architects remains in a league of its own in the concentration of strategy and architecture thought leadership in Australia – if not globally.

Mac Lemon is the Managing Director of Enterprise Architects Pty Ltd and is based in Melbourne, Australia.

This is an extract from Mac’s recent blog post on the Enterprise Architects web site which you can view here.

Last week, we announced new roadmapping support for TOGAF® in IBM Rational System Architect®, a leading Enterprise Architecture and modeling software.

The new TOGAF extension supports the modeling, migration and implementation of an Enterprise Architecture within Corso’s Strategic Planning Platform, which integrates Enterprise Architecture, IT planning and strategic planning into a single, comprehensive solution. The new TOGAF extension provides capabilities in managing current and future state architectures, work packages and timelines/lifecycles /heatmaps—key areas for successful roadmapping and transition planning.

Corso now offers roadmapping solutions for both ArchiMate® 2.0 and TOGAF as part of its Strategic Planning Platform. Both solutions are available as SaaS option, on-premise or standard perpetual license solution. A roadmapping datasheet and white paper are available.

Roadmapping is critical for building change-tolerant Enterprise Architectures that accurately describe and manage strategic business transformations. Our new solution gives Enterprise Architects the tools within TOGAF to more quickly map out a transition plan with deliverables for the organization. By tying plans to the business strategy, the architects can drive a faster development and implementation lifecycle.

Our new TOGAF solution offers these key capabilities:

Automatic generation of timeline diagrams with milestones and dimensions.

Work package definitions and resources so users can group and track specific actions.

Heat maps that display a visual map of the state of the business and IT infrastructure and highlight cost overruns.

Improved gap analysis through enhanced support for plateaus and gaps.

Roadmap reports that enable users to see the current and future states of the architecture and work packages.

Integration with IBM Rational Focal Point® so that work packages and milestones can be used in portfolio management and prioritization initiatives.

Lifecycle support for standard states such as application portfolio management.

Corso’s Strategic Planning Platform is a comprehensive solution that integrates Enterprise Architecture, IT and strategic planning into a fully charged change process that uses cloud technology to elevate decision-making to a strategic level. This approach unites business and architecture views into one central platform and leverages existing tools and the Web to share information and decision-making across various teams within the organization. For more information about Corso and its roadmapping solutions, visit http://www.corso.co.uk.

Martin Owen, CEO, Corso has spent over 20 years in Enterprise Architecture and is a co-author of the original Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) standard. Martin has run teams driving the product directions, strategies and roadmaps for the Enterprise Architecture tools at IBM.